Christianity is not a monotheistic religion

I am usually heavy on using scripture to support my claims, but this is mostly common sense.

Christianity has one reason to claim legitimate monotheism, that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one and are equal.

Except that they aren't one (TRInity) and the 3 aren't equal. The Holy Spirit is the only member of the trinity that if you blasphemeyyou can NOT be forgiven. You can repent from blasphemy against God or Jesus, but according to Jesus you will not be forgiven ever if you blaspheme the Holy Spirit.

Jesus says "Only God is good." Which is both a declaration that he is not God (which christians just ignore) and that he is inferior to God, not equal at all.

So how can they say they only worship one God when they clearly have 3 distinct, seperate, unequal entities they call God. Jesus was on earth while his Father was in heaven. Now he sits at his right. The Holy Spirit is here with us. At no time are they 1, always 3, they don't unite in one sometimes and separate at others. Always 3.

I am dying to hear the explanation from Christians as to how a religion with 3 distinct unequal Gods keeps a straight face while adopting the pagan/Hindu/Egyptian/Babylonian trinity doctrine that isn't in the bible. The word trinity never occurs.

The first trinity we know about was Nimrod/Semiramis/Tammuz out of Mesopotamia. God HATES paganism, forbids its customs even. A God who claims to never change wouldn't do that.

Sorry christians, your polytheist.

a reply to: Othello420

Actually the Holy Trinity is simply three aspects of the same source. I am not a Christian, but even I don't see the Trinity as three different 'Gods'. Like you said...its common sense.

a reply to: Metallicus

That's the opposite of common sense. TRI means three, mono means one.

That's common sense.

originally posted by: Othello420
a reply to: Metallicus

That's the opposite of common sense. TRI means three, mono means one.

That's common sense.

A TRIcycle has THREE wheels, but is ONE object.

I've seen this argument before and it's funny how some people continuously like to argue the same semantics (even after how many accounts get banned?).

a reply to: Metallicus

I don't know what you think common sense is, but religion with three seperate gods is polytheism. They aren't emmanations or forms of the one God they are 3 distinct and seperate at all times, gods.

Stick to something you know instead of trying to sound like you have a clue what your talking about. I covered your fallacy in the introduction.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Othello420
a reply to: Metallicus

That's the opposite of common sense. TRI means three, mono means one.

That's common sense.

A TRIcycle has THREE wheels, but is ONE object.

I've seen this argument before and it's funny how some people continuously like to argue the same semantics (even after how many accounts get banned?).

So God is a tricycle? Stupid metaphor dude.

a reply to: TerryDon79Your argument sucks because they don't ever combine into one being. They are 3 seperate "tricycles" not one with 3 parts.

Did you actually think that was a clever analogy? It stinks, comparing God to a tricycle is the absolute dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Where does the Holy Trinosophia fit into this?

Oh, they don't know about that?

LOL

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness

there is a prularity in Genesis 1:26

There is something here that I do not understand.

Why waste time arguing over something that has no proof available?

a reply to: Othello420

Stupid metaphor dude.

Stick to something you know instead of trying to sound like you have a clue what your talking about.

Did you actually think that was a clever analogy? It stinks, comparing God to a tricycle is the absolute dumbest thing I've ever heard.

'Dude', whats 'stupid' is starting a thread and then belittling anyone who has a different view than you.

Enjoy your short stay at ATS.

a reply to: dollukka

The Genesis story is talking about the Elohim. Nobody with any sense would think that it's talking about Jesus. Elohim means gods, plural, as in the Sons of God. Jesus wasn't even in the equation. He wasn't even born yet so you know damn well the author had no knowledge of Jesus and wasn't talking about trinity. But by all means, lets just make stuff up.

originally posted by: Othello420
a reply to: TerryDon79Your argument sucks because they don't ever combine into one being. They are 3 seperate "tricycles" not one with 3 parts.

Did you actually think that was a clever analogy? It stinks, comparing God to a tricycle is the absolute dumbest thing I've ever heard.

No, they are not three separate tricycles. A (singular) tricycle is an object with 3 (as in 3 of) wheels yet it is still defined as A (singular) tricycle.

Tri only means three. A TRIpod is also A (singular) thing yet it has 3 legs.

Your argument is weak as you don't even present an argument. All you do is say it's not because YOU say so.

originally posted by: Othello420
a reply to: Metallicus

That's the opposite of common sense. TRI means three, mono means one.

That's common sense.

Three ASPECTS not three deities.

It isn't complicated unless you are being deliberately obtuse.

a reply to: stosh64

I'm not belittling anyone I'm being honest, a difficult concept for christians. If it hurts feelings oh well, people don't HAVE to say stupid thing but if they do your damn right Im gonna call them on it. A tricycle has 3 wheels but those 3 wheels don't become one wheel. It was a stupid analogy.

a reply to: Othello420

Wow lol
Well you might want to study hebrew word Echad and how it presents itself in Jewish bible. Echad is not a number it is unity. When you understand word Echad we can continue.

a reply to: Metallicus


I didn't say it was complicated, I said it was polytheism and it is by definition so any argument you want to make doesn't change math. 3 gods can't, by definition, be monotheistic. And Jesus isn't God, but that's another story.

This thread is hypocrisy on its own.
You ask for an opinion but refute it and scream at the person with insults, when in fact you ASKED.

Dude, if you don't get the holy Trinity then stop arguing over something so futile, nobody will understand.

my view would be there is a holy Trinity.
Holy spirit was first hovering over the waters. Then God creates the world, after that his son comes down here. I like to to think it's Grandpa G, Father G, and Son J.
Basically it's like your grandpa, your Papa, and you. You look different but are the same.

The tricycle analogy is the same. Three wheels but on a grand scale, it is a cycle with three wheels that cycle.
Hope you like it fresh.

a reply to: Othello420
I think your argument is less with christianity itself on this front and more with (disputed) christian theology - the trinity view of god in the christian bible isn't directly clarified one way or the other. As such, I take a back-burner approach to it and suggest following the example 'Jesus' set (acknowledging and worshipping the Father directly) to avoid running afoul, regardless of how the concept itself actually ends up panning out.

That being said - I like the analogy is saw once in support of the trinitarian doctrine: no one disputes that a light bulb (the Father, in this case) is a single item, but in function it also becomes light (the Son) and warmth (the Spirit).

Regarding 'Jesus' teaching regarding himself and the Father, I suppose from the trinitarian view it is safe to assume that he was merely presenting that perfect example to avoid confusion. However, even in doing so, he still ran afoul of the pharisees and others who sought to strike him down for blasphemy as a result of ascribing to himself the properties or rights of god alone (one reason we have a claim of dualism as compared to trinitarianism in some circles, with the Spirit being seen as a function of god and not a personage).

Then there's the oneness view on the other side arguing that all are god, but not distinct entities within/of god, but a singular entity playing multiple roles (granted, I have a harder time following this one than the others).

Regarding the unforgivable sin, I've long considered (along with some of my issues with the personage of the Spirit) that this was not referring to a personality/entity of the godhead, but in general ascribing the works of god to the devil/evil, etc. A catch-all in this reference, essentially.

All that fun aside - the jewish texts and terms presented readily account for a plurality of God, a unity of multiple parts in the singular, as mentioned here already re: elohim, yichad/echad, and so on.

So - interesting to research and debate if you wish, but a stumbling block that might be best left alone for those of the faith, and a non-issue if we follow the perfect example of 'Jesus' as advised directly by him.

Grace & peace.